The British 2011 census

There is a difference between lacking faith, and having no religion

BICYCLING to Economist HQ each day, it is hard to miss the advertisments on double-decker buses, urging Britons who are not practising religious believers to tick the box marked "no religion" on the 2011 census, which is taken this month. The slogan is pithy enough: "Not religious? In this year's census say so."

The British Humanist Association is behind the campaign, and their website offers more detailed guidance.

If you are agnostic on the question of God but otherwise non-religious, we would say you should tick the ‘No Religion' box if you don't practise and don't believe that any religion can speak for you

It has advice for secular Sikhs and Jews, too, advising:

Writing in ‘secular Jew' or ‘non-religious Jew' in the religion section may be counted as being of the Jewish religion. The ethnicity question does not have a Jewish box but it does have an ‘any other white background' box which allows you to write in ‘Jewish.' Doing this and ticking the ‘No Religion' box in the religion section is therefore the best way to be counted as a non-religious Jew

and

UK law recognises Sikhism as both a religion and an ethnicity. If you are a practising Sikh, you can tick the ‘Sikh' box under the religion question. However, if you consider yourself ethnically Sikh but non-religious, writing in ‘secular Sikh' or ‘non-religious Sikh' in the religion section may be counted as being of the Sikh religion. The ethnicity question does not have a Sikh box but it does have an ‘any other Asian background' box which allows you to write in ‘Sikh.' Doing this and ticking the ‘No Religion' box in the religion section is therefore the best way to be counted as a non-religious Sikh.

Given that I am a secular sort, and would like a clearer separation between the church and state in Britain, I am slightly surprised to find I think the BHA's arguments are baloney, and even a little bullying.

I can understand why the BHA is making them. They think that modern Britain's strikingly secular character is not captured by census data reporting that a majority of Britons consider themselves Christian. They argue that this data is then used to justify public spending on faith schools, for example. That's baloney, too. The driving force behind government funding for faith schools [corrected, see comment below] has very little to do with religion, and rather more to do with the demand from middle class parents for more traditional, disciplined and/or cosy schools. Successive British governments have not protected faith schools because they fear an ear-wigging from Church of England bishops sitting in the House of Lords. It is because generations of ministers (a) know they would be lynched by voters if they closed down Church of England and Roman Catholic schools, which routinely top league tables and (b) send their own children to such faith schools (cf, Tony Blair, David Cameron and other well-known political parents).

But the BHA is unable to wish away one big problem. The census does not ask if British residents practise a religion or believe in a religion. Rightly or wrongly, it asks if they have a religion, and that is different. A non-believing Christian, Jew, Sikh or Muslim may well have a religion. And this is more than just wordplay.

For what it is worth, Bagehot is a lapsed Anglican, and it is hard to get more lapsed than that. That does not mean I have no religion. I lack faith. And that which I lack faith in is Church of England Christianity (a lesson drummed home with special force by living in non-Christian China for some years). I am marked, indelibly, by that which I do not believe. This being so, I would feel less than truthful if I ticked "no religion".

The differences between faith and religion?
In my experience, the following:

Faith sustains the private conscience of an individual.
Religion sustains the tyranny of theocrats.
Faith is what Galileo had.
Religion is what his inquisitors had.
Faith is like a kayak, into which no more than two people take their seats and paddle confidently into the wilderness to discover for themselves the wonders of the world.
Religion is a fenced field, into which sheep are herded - often by barking dogs - while supposedly omniscient protectors patrol the barbed wire fence, and indoctrinate the captive sheep with self-serving stories about the forbidden world beyond.

Bagehot should feel thrilled to have the opportunity to indulge himself in such fine-grained angst. Freethinkers who live in the United States of Christ can only hope our grandchildren will be so lucky.

And sorry - let me just add that I too grew up in a very strict religious (Catholic) household and attended religious schools. Like Bagehot, I too lived overseas in non-Christian (Taoist, Buddhist, Shintoist and Muslim) cultures for much of my adult life. I do understand why Bagehot is reluctant to tick 'No Religion', and I take no issue with anyone in the same boat as he. But I do think that the BHA makes a valid point; on my travels, I have met many 'reluctant' Muslims / Catholics / Others. These are people, not jars of jam on a supermarket shelf to whom others affix defining labels; they must be encouraged, and given the opportunities, to define themselves.

Then there was the Jew who was stranded on a desert island and, when rescued, was found to have built two synagogues. When asked, he said 'I worship in this one... I wouldn't be seen dead in that one!'

@dj-sanfran
Why would an agnostic family baptize its children? That shows the lack of reason as well as the lack of faith... Unless of course, this gives you an excuse to call yourself something very special, like a designer coffee drink.

Bagehot, I have failed to understand your point.
You say you are a lapsed & faithless anglican, fine.
It is unclear to me why you think you still have a religion.

I am not picking a fight, I simply wish to understand your point.

I was raised anglican, and attended a privileged C of E school, but happily call myself agnostic, & irreligious.
Since the existence of a deity can neither be proven or disproven, religion & atheism both require faith. I have no faith at all, I don't know if there is or isn't one or many deities, & I don't care.

I too am a lapsed Anglican, but enough of the faith stays with me to prevent me from describing myself as an atheist. I really don't feel I can tick the Christian box, and I'm happy to describe myself as having no religion.

I think the critical element of the BHA advice is whether or not you feel the religion can speak for you. I'm utterly sick and tired of Christian types who try to speak for me, given half a chance. Also, when I was a practising Christian, I did not think much of people who made no commitment to the faith, but still described themselves as Christian.

The BHA may be talking baloney when it talks about faith schools and such, but it is talking sense to me on the main issue. I may hold many Christian doctrines dear to my heart, but that does not make me religious.

How about the opposite problem? Would people who tick the "no religion" box be assumed by the census to be atheists or agnostics? I (lapsed Catholic FYI) find this a problem in the US, where many people think you can only be very religious or very anti-religious. Of course it's a problem in the US in general where so many issues are treated as being either/or.

In my opinion, no-one here has yet considered the REAL question about this census: why are people asked about their religion? What business is it of the state to know whether one is Catholic/Protestant/Hindu/aetheist or whatever?

The state should be clearly separated from religion. I live in France, which certainly has problems in various areas, but the question above was settled in 1905. If all the inhabitants of France realized this point then we would have fewer problems.

Well among other things we value tradition; in addition we like many of the Anglican Church's values and rituals, and it makes the wider family happy (some of whom may be people of faith as well as religion).

I thought getting married in the Church was a more emotional, traditional and joyous event than getting married at City Hall would have been.

We celebrate Christmas too.

Do you really think lack of reason is the only possible explanation for observing tradition?

I think there is a crucial typo in the phrase "The driving force behind government funding for state schools has very little to do with religion ..." it should read "faith schools".

Great piece. Secular Jews who despite being secular (maybe out of a sense of guilt) consider orthodox Judaism the only real one, have a saying "The synagogue I don't attend is orthodox". It would be a good corollary to this article.

I can sympathise with Bagehot's point though I don't feel that strongly about it either way. I am a lapsed Catholic and therefore there is a specific religion I no longer believe in. None of the other religions would even be a consideration for me. However, I can imagine my children (if any) would definitely tick the no religion box since they wouldn't even be raised as Catholics. The latter may be a result of being married to a lapsed Anglican and opting for a wedding ceremony on a sunny beach rather than in a church for atmosphere. Has we opted for a church though I would have wanted it to be a Catholic one. Makes no logical sense, but we are all products of our upbringing.

The comparison to "non-Christian China" is illuminating. My impression is that there nobody "has" or "practices" religion...publicly and in the government's face. But there are many, many who "believe".

I won't presume to speak for Bagehot, but I share his sentiment so will explain my rationale. I was raised Episcopalian (the US equivalent of Anglican) but no longer believe in its doctrine of the Trinity and so forth. However I agree with many of the principles it recommends to us and appreciate many of its traditions and social interactions. Consequently we were married in an Episcopalian Church, baptized our sons in the Church, attend Easter service and will likely send our boys to Episcopalian school. So in a survey I would say I am (culturally) Episcopalian although I am religiously agnostic.

In this blog, our Bagehot columnist surveys the politics of Britain, British life and Britain's place in the world. The column and blog are named after Walter Bagehot, an English journalist who was the editor of The Economist from 1861 to 1877. The blog is currently on hiatus after a change of Bagehot columnist.